Lreynolds wrote:It doesn't matter what he did with the ducks or why he "needed" them. You can't steal to feed your family. $300 fine plus replacement value if first offense. Same plus loss of hunting privileges if second or more.

FinnLandR wrote:Right now game wardens and conservation officers across the country are furiously searching every post half of you have made trying to figure out who you are and where you live....

The ones around here have somewhat different priorities. The deer poachers, meth heads, and morons in general keep them pretty occupied year round. When it comes to waterfowl it has to be a pretty bad violation to get them off their usual routine.

UmatillaJeff wrote:By his very nature this tends to be a modest man who is loved by woman, children and dogs and well though of in all social circles.We will call him the 10ga man

FinnLandR wrote:Right now game wardens and conservation officers across the country are furiously searching every post half of you have made trying to figure out who you are and where you live....

all of em around here know me any way.. and the only ticket i have ever gotten is for shooting a coon that was getting into the garbage.. got pulled over for a tail light out on the way to get rid of the thing.. in hind sight, i should have just thrown it in the trash... $10 fine.. court cost was $100 or 125

WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.

pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.

Lreynolds wrote:It doesn't matter what he did with the ducks or why he "needed" them. You can't steal to feed your family. $300 fine plus replacement value if first offense. Same plus loss of hunting privileges if second or more.

I'm not trying to argue with you Larry, but regardless of what the law says, if it ever comes down to my family starving and me killing an animal out of season, you can go ahead and label me a poacher. My land is supporting enough of the "states" game that I will kill what I need if it ever comes down to it. I hope it never comes to that though.

No one can "steal" wild ducks by shooting them over the limit. Wild ducks belong to no one until they are reduced to possession. Then the guy holding them owns them, not the public. I get so sick of those communistic claims that ducks belong to the public. The only thing the public owns is those things built or bought with our tax dollars. And that ain't ducks. Common law calls it The Rule of Capture.

Lreynolds wrote:It doesn't matter what he did with the ducks or why he "needed" them. You can't steal to feed your family. $300 fine plus replacement value if first offense. Same plus loss of hunting privileges if second or more.

I'm not trying to argue with you Larry, but regardless of what the law says, if it ever comes down to my family starving and me killing an animal out of season, you can go ahead and label me a poacher. My land is supporting enough of the "states" game that I will kill what I need if it ever comes down to it. I hope it never comes to that though.

That's OK with me, but it's against the law .... AND you have many other LEGAL options to feed your family, including coming by my Church where we will help you as we do hundreds of others. The NEED to kill game out of season or over the limit during the season is badly overstated by people trying to make an un-realistic point in hypothetical discussions like this.

The fact is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. As a private landowner, you control access to that game, but you are not the sole owner of it, and thus can not legally use it as you see fit. No value judgments at all, that is simply the law. Just like I can NOT take your camera (or whatever property) out of your truck and sell it to "feed my family", I am also not allowed to take public-owned wildlife outside of the regulations that permit it to "feed my family".

It has nothing to do with whether you think ducks are more or less important than cameras, or tool boxes, or jewelry ..... it has to do with taking something that is not yours to take. I don't know what the punishment is for stealing somebody's camera or tool box or jewelry either.

Underradar wrote:No one can "steal" wild ducks by shooting them over the limit. Wild ducks belong to no one until they are reduced to possession. Then the guy holding them owns them, not the public. I get so sick of those communistic claims that ducks belong to the public. The only thing the public owns is those things built or bought with our tax dollars. And that ain't ducks. Common law calls it The Rule of Capture.

That's not true, and you know it. The most important foundation of the North American Wildlife Management Model is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. Only through regulations promulgated by a representative system are hunters allowed to "reduce that public-owned resource to private possession". That is why the process for setting hunting regulations MUST consider the public's views, both hunting and non-hunting, through public comment periods. That is a major reason why ordinary guys still have access to hunting opportunity without owning land. That is why/how game laws are promulgated and enforced.

Get as sick of it as you like because it is clearly the law of the land.

Lreynolds wrote:Just like I can NOT take your camera (or whatever property) out of your truck and sell it to "feed my family", I am also not allowed to take public-owned wildlife outside of the regulations that permit it to "feed my family".

That's a very poor analogy.You speak as if wildlife are inanimate objects funded through tax $$, like a statue in front of the courthouse. A very small portion of their habitat might be funded by tax payers, but the animals themselves are not. What happens when that duck crosses over into Canada? Is it still United States public property? What happens if an American shoots it, in season? According to your logic they just stole Canadian property. After all, it was created there, so it must be theirs.

UmatillaJeff wrote:By his very nature this tends to be a modest man who is loved by woman, children and dogs and well though of in all social circles.We will call him the 10ga man

Lreynolds wrote:It doesn't matter what he did with the ducks or why he "needed" them. You can't steal to feed your family. $300 fine plus replacement value if first offense. Same plus loss of hunting privileges if second or more.

I'm not trying to argue with you Larry, but regardless of what the law says, if it ever comes down to my family starving and me killing an animal out of season, you can go ahead and label me a poacher. My land is supporting enough of the "states" game that I will kill what I need if it ever comes down to it. I hope it never comes to that though.

That's OK with me, but it's against the law .... AND you have many other LEGAL options to feed your family, including coming by my Church where we will help you as we do hundreds of others. The NEED to kill game out of season or over the limit during the season is badly overstated by people trying to make an un-realistic point in hypothetical discussions like this.

The fact is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. As a private landowner, you control access to that game, but you are not the sole owner of it, and thus can not legally use it as you see fit. No value judgments at all, that is simply the law. Just like I can NOT take your camera (or whatever property) out of your truck and sell it to "feed my family", I am also not allowed to take public-owned wildlife outside of the regulations that permit it to "feed my family".

It has nothing to do with whether you think ducks are more or less important than cameras, or tool boxes, or jewelry ..... it has to do with taking something that is not yours to take. I don't know what the punishment is for stealing somebody's camera or tool box or jewelry either.

Gotta agree with La. Hunter on this one.

Genesis 9:3 (KJV)Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Jim and Bill are poachers and both loose hunting privileges and the law will probably issue them fines as well. Its a crime whether you are caught or not. If there is intent and the act is committed, its a crime.

The outfitter, he will lose hunting and outfitting privliges, as well as more fines and perhaps jail time. if you are a pro, you are held to a higher standard.

Just because you don't get caught, doesn't mean its not wrong. That is part of what makes a civilized society civilized.

Underradar wrote:No one can "steal" wild ducks by shooting them over the limit. Wild ducks belong to no one until they are reduced to possession. Then the guy holding them owns them, not the public. I get so sick of those communistic claims that ducks belong to the public. The only thing the public owns is those things built or bought with our tax dollars. And that ain't ducks. Common law calls it The Rule of Capture.

That's not true, and you know it. The most important foundation of the North American Wildlife Management Model is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. Only through regulations promulgated by a representative system are hunters allowed to "reduce that public-owned resource to private possession". That is why the process for setting hunting regulations MUST consider the public's views, both hunting and non-hunting, through public comment periods. That is a major reason why ordinary guys still have access to hunting opportunity without owning land. That is why/how game laws are promulgated and enforced.

Get as sick of it as you like because it is clearly the law of the land.

Next time I hit a deer, I'm sending the bill to the state. It's either their deer, or they are the legal custodian of it, per the public trust model. I have to pay them to shoot them, they tell me where, when, how, and how many I may kill. I'd say that makes them theirs. And as such, it's no different than if my kid, or a kid I have assumed legal guardianship of, throws a rock through the neighbor's window- I get the bill.

So why doesn't the state have to pay for the damage "their" animal did?

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

So, lets just get rid of all wildlife regulations, mount punt guns on our boats and turrets on the blinds, and have a free for all. Then we can come back to the now golf chat.com and talk about the long gone days of duck hunting. @

MARKET GUNNING DUCKS

In the eastern U.S. in the late 1700s and 1800s where large rafts of ducks came through every winter, the occupation of market hunting flourished. Besides the fact that people needed ducks for food, farmers fed them to their pigs, also. This vast demand for market gunners meant a man who loved to hunt could hunt and earn a living at the same time.

great abundance of waterfowl must have seemed non-ending as Thomas Morton wrote in the 17th century that he had had more than 1000 geese before the muzzle of his gun at one time. Another historian recorded that he had seen the harbor at Lynn, Massachusetts, frequently so covered with ducks and geese that he couldn't see the water. The smooth- bore, black-powder fowling pieces grew bigger each year, developing at last into small swivel cannon known as punt guns mounted on boats. These black-powder guns could almost wipe out a flock of swimming ducks.

For instance, many of the market gunners in later years on the Texas Gulf Coast averaged taking 200 ducks each daily. One man figured to have killed about 360,000 ducks in his 16 years of market gunning. By 1900, only 150 million ducks and geese survived in the U.S.

Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?Fat Tony: Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?Bart: No.Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?Bart: Uh uh.Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?Bart: I guess that's okay.Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?Bart: Hell, no.

Lreynolds wrote:It doesn't matter what he did with the ducks or why he "needed" them. You can't steal to feed your family. $300 fine plus replacement value if first offense. Same plus loss of hunting privileges if second or more.

I'm not trying to argue with you Larry, but regardless of what the law says, if it ever comes down to my family starving and me killing an animal out of season, you can go ahead and label me a poacher. My land is supporting enough of the "states" game that I will kill what I need if it ever comes down to it. I hope it never comes to that though.

That's OK with me, but it's against the law .... AND you have many other LEGAL options to feed your family, including coming by my Church where we will help you as we do hundreds of others. The NEED to kill game out of season or over the limit during the season is badly overstated by people trying to make an un-realistic point in hypothetical discussions like this.

The fact is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. As a private landowner, you control access to that game, but you are not the sole owner of it, and thus can not legally use it as you see fit. No value judgments at all, that is simply the law. Just like I can NOT take your camera (or whatever property) out of your truck and sell it to "feed my family", I am also not allowed to take public-owned wildlife outside of the regulations that permit it to "feed my family".

It has nothing to do with whether you think ducks are more or less important than cameras, or tool boxes, or jewelry ..... it has to do with taking something that is not yours to take. I don't know what the punishment is for stealing somebody's camera or tool box or jewelry either.

Larry,

I can assure you that I have no intentions of ever being in that predicament to begin with and I'd have to be in an extreme bind to resort to that. I'm very "by the book" when it comes to hunting for recreational purposes and have told the wildlife and fishery agents that I know that they are more than welcome to come onto my place anytime they please and check me. I've given the combinations to my gates to everyone of them as well. I have a good working relationship with them and intend to keep it that way. However, I'm not a handout type and will always do what it takes to provide for my family. I've taken the necessary steps to provide for them for a long time if I'm ever laid off, injured or die suddenly, but in an emergency, whether financial, man made or act of nature, I'll do what it takes. Luckily, I live in Louisiana and have a couple of small private lakes and other fishing areas, so I should be able to provide them with fish for a long time, should something ever occur, but a deer or duck every now and then would definitely break the monotony of eating fish all the time. :)

D Comeaux wrote:So, lets just get rid of all wildlife regulations, mount punt guns on our boats and turrets on the blinds, and have a free for all. Then we can come back to the now golf chat.com and talk about the long gone days of duck hunting. @

MARKET GUNNING DUCKS

In the eastern U.S. in the late 1700s and 1800s where large rafts of ducks came through every winter, the occupation of market hunting flourished. Besides the fact that people needed ducks for food, farmers fed them to their pigs, also. This vast demand for market gunners meant a man who loved to hunt could hunt and earn a living at the same time.

great abundance of waterfowl must have seemed non-ending as Thomas Morton wrote in the 17th century that he had had more than 1000 geese before the muzzle of his gun at one time. Another historian recorded that he had seen the harbor at Lynn, Massachusetts, frequently so covered with ducks and geese that he couldn't see the water. The smooth- bore, black-powder fowling pieces grew bigger each year, developing at last into small swivel cannon known as punt guns mounted on boats. These black-powder guns could almost wipe out a flock of swimming ducks.

For instance, many of the market gunners in later years on the Texas Gulf Coast averaged taking 200 ducks each daily. One man figured to have killed about 360,000 ducks in his 16 years of market gunning. By 1900, only 150 million ducks and geese survived in the U.S.

And how is this relevant? You blew it about 1000x out of proportion.

UmatillaJeff wrote:By his very nature this tends to be a modest man who is loved by woman, children and dogs and well though of in all social circles.We will call him the 10ga man

Lreynolds wrote:Just like I can NOT take your camera (or whatever property) out of your truck and sell it to "feed my family", I am also not allowed to take public-owned wildlife outside of the regulations that permit it to "feed my family".

That's a very poor analogy.You speak as if wildlife are inanimate objects funded through tax $$, like a statue in front of the courthouse.

Not true. I'm saying that a duck is something that can not be legally taken for your own personal use outside of the laws that allow it, just like you can not take someone's property for your own personal use. Nothing more.

shoveler_shooter wrote:. What happens when that duck crosses over into Canada? Is it still United States public property? What happens if an American shoots it, in season? According to your logic they just stole Canadian property. After all, it was created there, so it must be theirs.

We have a treaty with Canada (and Mexico and Russia ..... the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) that covers migratory birds under the same legal management scheme as ours. Ducks are owned by all the citizens of Canada when they are there, and "taking" of those ducks for your own private use are governed by similar laws.

Underradar wrote:No one can "steal" wild ducks by shooting them over the limit. Wild ducks belong to no one until they are reduced to possession. Then the guy holding them owns them, not the public. I get so sick of those communistic claims that ducks belong to the public. The only thing the public owns is those things built or bought with our tax dollars. And that ain't ducks. Common law calls it The Rule of Capture.

That's not true, and you know it. The most important foundation of the North American Wildlife Management Model is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. Only through regulations promulgated by a representative system are hunters allowed to "reduce that public-owned resource to private possession". That is why the process for setting hunting regulations MUST consider the public's views, both hunting and non-hunting, through public comment periods. That is a major reason why ordinary guys still have access to hunting opportunity without owning land. That is why/how game laws are promulgated and enforced.

Get as sick of it as you like because it is clearly the law of the land.

Next time I hit a deer, I'm sending the bill to the state. It's either their deer, or they are the legal custodian of it, per the public trust model. I have to pay them to shoot them, they tell me where, when, how, and how many I may kill. I'd say that makes them theirs. And as such, it's no different than if my kid, or a kid I have assumed legal guardianship of, throws a rock through the neighbor's window- I get the bill.

So why doesn't the state have to pay for the damage "their" animal did?

Because YOU are part of "their". You are as much owner of that deer as everyone else. That is why you have as much right to kill that deer and do with it what you want within the agreed-upon regulations promulgated through a representative process as anyone else, and you bear the same risk and responsibilities of those deer as everyone else. That is why there are depredation permits issues to reduce populations of public-owned wildlife that are causing problems. I believe there are some instances where property damages are reimbursed, like if sheep or calves are killed by re-stocked wolves.

Underradar wrote:No one can "steal" wild ducks by shooting them over the limit. Wild ducks belong to no one until they are reduced to possession. Then the guy holding them owns them, not the public. I get so sick of those communistic claims that ducks belong to the public. The only thing the public owns is those things built or bought with our tax dollars. And that ain't ducks. Common law calls it The Rule of Capture.

That's not true, and you know it. The most important foundation of the North American Wildlife Management Model is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. Only through regulations promulgated by a representative system are hunters allowed to "reduce that public-owned resource to private possession". That is why the process for setting hunting regulations MUST consider the public's views, both hunting and non-hunting, through public comment periods. That is a major reason why ordinary guys still have access to hunting opportunity without owning land. That is why/how game laws are promulgated and enforced.

Get as sick of it as you like because it is clearly the law of the land.

Hey Larry...care to comment on the State vs. Federal battle over the regulation of Red Snapper of the coast of louisiana? I hear that we may not get a fall season after all, that the FEDs might shut it down. The FEDs are basing this off of very skewed data collections of 78 red snapper and estimating a catch of 669,000 lbs. recreational, vs. the state which has a data collection from 1700 fish and an estimated 445,000 lbs. recreational catch.

Any opinions????

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

I can assure you that I have no intentions of ever being in that predicament to begin with and I'd have to be in an extreme bind to resort to that. I'm very "by the book" when it comes to hunting for recreational purposes and have told the wildlife and fishery agents that I know that they are more than welcome to come onto my place anytime they please and check me. I've given the combinations to my gates to everyone of them as well. I have a good working relationship with them and intend to keep it that way. However, I'm not a handout type and will always do what it takes to provide for my family. I've taken the necessary steps to provide for them for a long time if I'm ever laid off, injured or die suddenly, but in an emergency, whether financial, man made or act of nature, I'll do what it takes. Luckily, I live in Louisiana and have a couple of small private lakes and other fishing areas, so I should be able to provide them with fish for a long time, should something ever occur, but a deer or duck every now and then would definitely break the monotony of eating fish all the time. :)

I understand, and please know that I'm speaking strictly from a legal standpoint. I don't care whether you are a handout type or not (I'm not either) because that is not the issue. There are dozens of LEGAL alternatives to feed your family without violating game laws. I suspect that when things get to the point that people like you and I really and truly NEED to feed our families off the land, society will have degraded to the point where game laws will be irrelevant.

Indaswamp wrote:Hey Larry...care to comment on the State vs. Federal battle over the regulation of Red Snapper of the coast of louisiana? I hear that we may not get a fall season after all, that the FEDs might shut it down. The FEDs are basing this off of very skewed data collections of 78 red snapper and estimating a catch of 669,000 lbs. recreational, vs. the state which has a data collection from 1700 fish and an estimated 445,000 lbs. recreational catch.

Any opinions????

My opinion is the same as your's, that the State's data is far superior to the Feds. However, the Feds have the legal control over the red snapper harvest, and they have turned it into a pissing match instead of an open and honest debate over the best possible information. We have had very similar bouts with the USFWS over bag limits of redheads where we have had the 6 highest population estimates on record in the last 6 years but they will not allow us to increase the bag limit from 2 to 3 per day.

It is incredibly frustrating!! But we have a much better working relationship regarding ducks than this red snapper debacle.